The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 [1].

---

Arular[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the requirements. It's my first music-related FAC, so hopefully I haven't made too many egregious errors :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
• http://www.betweenplanets.co.uk/2005/07/19/mia-to-release-uraqt/ what makes this a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.indieworkshop.com/archive/news.php?date=2005-07-19?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both those sources are referencing the point that multiple minor music news websites reported the impending release of a single which never actually came out. There didn't seem to be a better reference than a couple of the sites in question. Is that acceptable.....? Foreign language sources have been flagged up too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After triple-checking, I've now removed it completely. Looking at the sites in question, they all claim to be referencing a news item on XL Recordings' official website, but even using the Wayback Machine I can't find any evidence that such info was ever posted. Given that, and the fact that no "major" music news sites (Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound, etc) appear to have reported the info, the legitimacy of the announcement seems decidedly questionable, so I've taken it out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors in references found using WP:REFTOOLS

• ((cite web | last=Empire|first= Kitty| title= Pop Review of the Year 2005| url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/2005/story/0,,1672054,00.html | work = [[The Guardian]]| date=18 December 2005 | dateformat=dmy|accessdate=12 August 2008)) | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
• Amgmiach | A named reference is used but not defined--TRUCO 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kitty Empire duplicate refs combined into one. "Angmiach" ref is ref 55 as it currently stands and is defined in its second usage immediately after "Billboard 200", so I don't see what the issue is there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that <ref name=" Amgmiach "/> is used but the original reference formatting is not defined, which is <ref name="Agmiach">(ref content)</ref>. So that's what is the issue with that ref.--TRUCO 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems to be resolved now, the problem was that some of the usages of that ref were entered as <ref name=" Amgmiach "/> - note the spacing. Although they displayed OK and internally linked to the right spot in the refs list, the spaces around "Angmiach" were confusing the tool you were using..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh okay, yeah I don't think the tool can pick that up, next time I'll search for things like that manually. Ref formatting is found up to speed.--TRUCO 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more reviewers will engage with a fresh start in 7 to 10 days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.